Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Possible documentation error

From: Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org>
To: "D'Arcy J(dot)M(dot) Cain" <darcy(at)druid(dot)net>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)PostgreSQL(dot)org
Subject: Re: Possible documentation error
Date: 2006-12-26 18:22:21
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Tue, Dec 26, 2006 at 12:49:55PM -0500, D'Arcy J.M. Cain wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Dec 2006 18:12:45 +0100
> Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org> wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 26, 2006 at 12:04:40PM -0500, D'Arcy J.M. Cain wrote:
> > > Now it certainly seems to me that it should behave as described given
> > > the definition of VACUUM FULL so I am a little confused by my tests.
> > > My test table only has two entries in it.  Is that the issue?  In fact,
> > > I find the same behaviour if I do a simple VACUUM on the table.
> > 
> > On a table with two entries, VACUUM FULL is going to do nothing of
> > interest. Moving tuples within a page is useless, generally.
> I thought that that might be the issue.  The docs should probably say
> "can" instead of "will" then.

The doumenttion is accurate as is. It says when "moved by VACUUM FULL".
In your case they wern't moved. If you change the word "will" to "can",
it will be wrong.

Have a nice day,
Martijn van Oosterhout   <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org>
> From each according to his ability. To each according to his ability to litigate.

In response to


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Heikki LinnakangasDate: 2006-12-26 19:47:39
Subject: Bitmap index thoughts
Previous:From: Edwin RamirezDate: 2006-12-26 17:50:19
Subject: WITH support

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group